Sidechain ducking question

[flatuswalrus]

I know there are videos about this but none explaining my exact situation which has confused my unknowledgeable brain.

I have a project which mostly uses the same reverb. So, I have reverb on its' own track, and I am sending multiple tracks to that reverb track to be a little easier for the CPU but mostly to get consistency throughout the project.

I have a track with a saxophone and I wish to send that to the reverb track also. Though, unlike all other tracks being sent to the reverb track I want to use ducking so the reverb compresses and lets the saxophone come through, only getting reverb mostly after the notes.

Is there a way I can do this with utilising that already existing reverb track without mucking other tracks up in the process? Or would it be better or necessary to create another separate reverb track purely for the saxophone? If someone would be kind enough to explain to me the steps I need to take in order to achieve this it would be greatly appreciated, thank you.

[foxAsteria]

If you want the reverb for the other tracks completely unaffected by the ducking, you'll need a separate reverb track. If it causes CPU issues, you can simply freeze that track once it's set up.

OTOH, you can use a dynamic EQ on the reverb track for ducking the verb only in the main frequency range of the sax. I use TDR Nova for this a lot.

[nait]

Just spit-balling here, but if you're looking to duck the saxophone reverb only.. couldn't you also route your saxophone to another track and apply compression to that, as needed? Also, you wouldn't want this track sending to the master/parent. You'd then route that intermediary track off to the reverb, but don't route the original saxophone track to the reverb. Then I'd think as that extra sax track ducks, so too would its reverb.

That said, it might make a little more sense to just create a new reverb.. just throwing out another option here, if you want to keep your reverb in one spot (as those can sometimes get a little CPU hungry, I think?). Off the top of my head that would work, but I might be wrong. There also may be a smarter way to do similar to what I'm suggesting too.

[Lokasenna]

Originally Posted by nait

Just spit-balling here, but if you're looking to duck the saxophone reverb only.. couldn't you also route your saxophone to another track and apply compression to that, as needed? Also, you wouldn't want this track sending to the master/parent. You'd then route that intermediary track off to the reverb, but don't route the original saxophone track to the reverb. Then I'd think as that extra sax track ducks, so too would its reverb.

This is definitely the easiest approach, and will often work well, but it's worth noting that this only ducks the sax's signal feeding IN to the reverb rather than the reverb itself; if it's a big long, washy reverb you'll still have the saxaphone's reverb tail going for a little bit.

[nait]

Right, hadn't thought of that.. good point.

[ashcat_lt]

Originally Posted by nait

...couldn't you also route your saxophone to another track and apply compression to that, as needed?

Doesn’t even need another track. Have the compressor put its output on an unused pair of track channels (3/4 or whatever) and send those to channels 1/2 on the verb. If compression isn’t severe enough, you might try the ducking mode in ReaGate.

But yeah that’s not exactly the same as having the reverb itself ducking behind the sax. For that, you really will need a second verb track unless you want everybody’s reverb ducking to the sax.

[nait]

Originally Posted by ashcat_lt

Doesn’t even need another track. Have the compressor put its output on an unused pair of track channels (3/4 or whatever) and send those to channels 1/2 on the verb. If compression isn’t severe enough, you might try the ducking mode in ReaGate.

But yeah that’s not exactly the same as having the reverb itself ducking behind the sax. For that, you really will need a second verb track unless you want everybody’s reverb ducking to the sax.

I guess we're solving a problem that doesn't need to be solved, but I'm curious now.. (so, pardon, to the OP for slightly sidetracking this thread).

With what you're saying ashcat, wouldn't the un-verbed sax be compressed then? Or would doing what you're saying basically create sort of a split routing where the uncompressed audio continues down the FX chain and the compressed audio goes o ff to the verb channel? I kind of figured there was probably a way to do it on one track, but I stumbled on this part.

Edited: answered my own question. I am still fairly green to Reaper, but I didn't realize that the audio would still continue on down the FX chain as though the compressor didn't do anything to it. So much to learn with this stuff, but there are a lot of smart people here to sponge off of!

[ashcat_lt]

Yeah, you send the output of the compressor to 3/4 and NOT 1/2, which creates a split. The uncompressed sound goes on down 1/2 to wherever it was going anyway, and you can send the compressed signal separately to the reverb.